Talk:Theory of everything/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

Should the page ever become unlocked, this section is in need of revision. The claim that GIT is would block an TOE is presented one-sidedly. In fact some experts disagree. See, for instance NYRB and C Shalizi and the current page on Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

"The conclusions of Gödel's theorems only hold for the formal systems that satisfy the necessary hypotheses (which have not been fully described in this article). Not all axiom systems do satisfy these hypotheses, even when these systems have models that include the natural numbers as a subset. For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry and real closed fields that do not meet the hypotheses of Gödel's theorems. The key fact is that the first-order languages used by these axiomatizations are not expressive enough to define the set of natural numbers or develop basic properties of the natural numbers."
"A second limitation is that Gödel's theorems only apply to systems that are used as their own proof systems. Gentzen's work shows the consequences of using a proof theory that is not the same theory, but a more powerful one."

1Z 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

I just have this to say. Godel's incompleteness theorem says you COMPLETELY CANNOT have a COMPLETE theory, unless it contradicts itself. Thus the incompleteness theorem itself is in contradiction of itself, because in order to say that nothing can be complete the theorem is acting like it IS complete, making a complete and "incontrovertible" statement about everything. So Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is simultaneously proving itself by disproving itself, and visa versa, it is disproving itself by proving itself. So is it true or false, that is the question?

Confusing it may be, but all that confusion is swept away when you consider that the number 1/0 is it's OWN contradiction that literally explains everything - a number that is both postive and negative - the absolute greatest value!! The end all of mathematics.

Let's consider the incompleteness theorem one more time. Nothing can be complete unless it is contradictory, right? Well you see!! Right there! The incompleteness theorem is giving us a choice. The theorem is representing the axiom of CHOICE in many ways, because according to it, we can choose one of two options!!! Option A is that nothing is complete and everything is consistent. Option B is that nothing is incomplete and everything is contradictory. Now I personally like it when everything is contradictory and nothing is incomplete! I know how to spot a good opportunity when I see one. For that is what makes life so great and what really exemplifies the IRONY OF TRUTH!!!

If we can define, by matter of choosing the best principle afforded to us, that nothing is incomplete and that everything is contradictory, then it would make sense that everything is defined as 1/0, and that this "one" thing divided by "nothing" must be both postive and negative at the same time. In conclusion, Godel's incompleteness theorem is defined as the opposite, the completeness theorem, when people finally have the logic and the wonder to define 1/0 and realize that it is the true paradox that defines everything.

sincerely, Archetype

None of that is correct as the links should make clear. 1Z 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)1Z

perhaps you'd like to explain it a bit more as I have gone to considerable lengths. -Arch—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

"The conclusions of Gödel's theorems only hold for the formal systems that satisfy the necessary hypotheses...Not all axiom systems do satisfy these hypotheses,". So a TOE that does not satisfy the necessary hypotheses is immune from GIT.1Z 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
that still doesn't answer the question. What are the neccessary hypotheses? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Schmidhuber on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Algorithmic Theories of Everything

The article features a lengthy discussion of the significance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, but in 1996 Jürgen Schmidhuber already pointed out that Gödel's theorems are not really relevant even for computable physics: J. Schmidhuber: A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 201-208, Springer, 1997: . He describes a short algorithm for computing all computable universes, then postulates our own universe is one of them, and writes: "Although we live in a computable universe, we occasionally chat about incomputable things, such as the halting probability of a universal Turing machine (which is closely related to Gödel's incompleteness theorem). And we sometimes discuss inconsistent worlds in which, say, time travel is possible. Talk about such worlds, however, does not violate the consistency of the processes underlying it." Follow-up papers ("Algorithmic Theories of Everything" and (2000) and "Hierarchies of generalized Kolmogorov complexities and nonenumerable universal measures computable in the limit. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 13(4):587-612, 2002") explicitly construct limit-computable, deterministic universes whose pseudo-randomness based on undecidable, Gödel-like halting problems is extremely hard to detect but does not prevent formal TOEs at all. His site has a series of papers on this topic. Discrepancy (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaki stuff is seriously problematic

Let me preface this by saying that I want to disassociate myself completely with the writings of Archetype above; what's written there, as far as I can tell, is complete nonsense.

However the Jaki section is still written far too uncritically. I haven't read Jaki's writings, but if the content is substantially as presented here, then he sounds to me like one of the many writers who attempt to apply the Gödel theorems outside of mathematics, without really understanding them. The results of these attempts are almost uniformly disastrous.

For example, the section claims

Gödel's theorem states that any non-trivial mathematical theory will be either incomplete or inconsistent.

Well, no, not exactly. It says that any recursively axiomatizable first-order theory in a recursively presented language, in which Peano arithmetic is relatively interpretable, is either incomplete or inconsistent. "Theory" is a word that has a very specific meaning in this context, and one not really all that closely related to what's usually understood by a physical theory. Physical theories generally accept mathematical truths as "ground truths" outside their purview; a theory that successfully explained all physical phenomena once allowed to access mathematical truth as an oracle would, I think, count as a "theory of everything" in the sense ordinarily understood in physics.

Anyway, my personal skepticism about Jaki's ideas per se are not really the point; the point is that I think he's being given undue weight in this article (and I think my background does qualify me to comment on that). --Trovatore 05:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trovatore, I do not consider myself an expert on TOE and you can blame me for placing the piece about Godel in the article. I stumbled across it in the wiki a few months back and have heard it mentioned else where, so copied the section from the Jaki article onto here. There is more explanation, support (?) for this view and citations from this site [1]. Again, I'm no expert and will follow what someone far more qualified than myself thinks in regards to this. In the meantime I'm working my way through some background reading on godels theorem Thanks Pluke 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hawkings goes some way to supporting Jaki's theory, by making reference to Godel. Transcript of lecture he gave is here [2]. Is it worth putting this section back in? Pluke 14:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is also supported by Paul Davies in his book The Mind of God Pluke 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't think I'd put it back the way it was; that put too much weight on Jaki, who as far as I can tell is a fairly minor figure in this area (though I could certainly be wrong about that). The Hawking talk might be worth a mention. But it was apparently directed at a fairly general audience, didn't get into a lot of detail. I'd be interested to know whether Hawking ever got into the subject in any more depth, whether he addressed the sorts of objections I raised at the top of this section. --Trovatore 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trovatore. Also, I would like to add that Gödel's theorem has to do with mathematical languages in which one can have alternating universal and existential quantifiers. I do not think that physical theories are like that. A physical theory is more like a mathematical theory in which one can calculate properties of natural numbers which are recursive, like: whether they are prime or not; and whether they are quadratic residues or not. JRSpriggs 07:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we an attempt at rewriting this section. It doesn't seem to be a whim if you have Hawkings and a philosopher of Science behind it, whatever your misgivings are I feel it would be useful to get something down to cover this point of view. Thanks Pluke 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion continued at #Jaki to keep the talk page more-or-less chronological. PaddyLeahy 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-physical TOE's

If a T.O.E is a "hypothetical theory of theoretical physics", as it says in the introduction, why would philosophical and theological theories even need to be mentioned? And why is an obscure Finn the only philosopher mentioned? What about Hegel, Schopenhauer, Whitehead and so on? Surely every system-building metaphysician qualifies, if any one does.1Z 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

theories that do not make testable predictions

I propose we remove all theories from the "see also" list which do not make testable predictions. Furthermore, we should consider adding those that do, such as Heim theory—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Which theories make testable predictions is debatable..and will be debated!1Z 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

so then what is the criteria for inclusion? -fellow human

this is a start1Z 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So then we can include Heim theory, the Aether Physics Model, Randell Mill's theory, and Kiril Chukanov's theory describing ball lightning. All of these theories have been published, experimentally tested, and proven. Rodin and Goschin proved Heim Theory, Aether Physics Model is proved mathematically by it's ability to do what the standard model couldn't and derive physical constants, Kiril Chukanov's theory does the same and it also has experiments with excited ball lightning to back it up, and Randell Mill's theory is also experimentally proven whereby he has been able to cause the electron in the hydrogen atom to move to a less than ground state releasing huge amounts of energy. All of these theories are correct that describe the new physics of post TOE science and they need to be listed and credit given where credit is due.

Well, they can't all be true, since they say differnt things, and many of them don't seem to be aiming at everything. The TOE page should be about TOE`s not alternative or new theories.1Z 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually they can all be true if they are all in concert with one another. But you are right, none of them defines everything specifically and mathematically. Only my theory has done that. 1/0=all. One thing divided by nothing. The unified field. Thank you.

Chomsky? (linguistics)

In "Teach Yourself Linguistics", Dr Jean Aitchison says that Noam Chomsky is also trying for a 'Theory of Everything' with his 'Minimalist Program'...Can we expand on that too? Zigzig20s 20:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a physics page - I know religion and philosophy are mentioned, but they shouldn't be.1Z 21:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the phrase is not solely used in physics though...Zigzig20s 22:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The theory of everything is complete, in that it misses nothing. In it, Nothing is undefined.

TOE (Physics)

Wouldn't one way to stop this article being swamped is to rename it something like Theory of Everything (physics) ? That way most of the philosophical & religious POV's would be redundant here, and a lot of the crackpot theories can be dumped too. If the article is getting too long, and swamped by string theory (as opposed to other credible, scientific (if maybe not the most currently popular or widely held) theories), it could be split into Theory of Everything (string theory). Then a Theory of Everything page could be just left as a disambiguation page, spliting into the TOE's (physics, religion, philosophy, linguistics, biology, crackpot#1, crackpot#2, crackpot#3, ..., etc).

PS Not my field, but do preons deserve a mention on this page ?

The Yeti 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. "Theory of everything" has a special meaning within physics. Whether a physical TOE is a theory of absolutely everything is not a question physics can answer.1Z 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved 1/0 junk below for its own discussion. I will move all such 1/0 references to there in future. The Yeti 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory of everythingTheory of everything (physics) — better description of contents The Yeti 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC) See also paragraph above: TOE (Physics), and discussion below. -The Yeti 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Modified to sentence case. --Stemonitis 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support - as the title change would more accurately describe the contents (ie) physics concepts, not just theories of absolutely everything and anything, which otherwise do seem to creep into the topic. The title as it stands is too broad and open to interpretation, including non-physics concepts. The Yeti 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose — there are only two articles called something like "theory of everything", which are the physics term and the philosophical term. Given that a disambiguation page should never have fewer than three entries, one of the two should be at theory of everything, and the use by physicists is almost certainly the primary meaning (the philosophy term being derived from it). --Stemonitis 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I can't really agree that a dab page should never have just two entries. If a title has two meanings of roughly similar encyclopedic prominence, it's the only possible solution. Picking one of them as the primary meaning should be done only when that meaning is very substantially predominant or very substantially more encyclopedic. That said, I'm fairly neutral on the move; "theory of everything" may well be predominantly associated with physics. --Trovatore 01:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Stemonitis, though I agree with Trovatore that there is no absolute necessity to avoid having dab pages with only two entries, I do think such minimal dab pages should be avoided whenever possible simply to limit the amount of distance between a user and an article. The term "Theory of Everything" in reference to physics is obviously the more prominent of the two, and should be the one under the main title. siafu 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per WP:DAB. The physics use of the term is distinctly more prominent then the philosophical meaning. Looking at the "What links here", one can easily see the prominent role that it has in physics and well as relevant mention in non-physics related articles. 02:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. The physics term seems to be the primary topic, so this is fine as it is. The tag at the top of the page should be sufficient for anyone looking for the philosophical use. Dekimasuよ! 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

Let me clarify, as there are two points to be addressed. Please discuss each on separate terms.

Firstly whether the title of the page should be Theory of Everything (physics), rather than just Theory of Everything, which too often gathers crackpots who literally talk about everything.

Secondly, whether there should be a dab page for Theories of Everything.

The Yeti 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question: How much of these "crackpot" additions are actually properly sourced or encyclopedic? If the answer is "none", the problem is a non-issue. For well-known (notable, sourced) proposed theories of everything that are far removed from mainstream science, a short mention in a small section at the end should suffice (perhaps with a {{main|list of speculative and disputed theories}} or whatever it's called this month tag at the top). --Christopher Thomas 06:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could someone add finnish link?

Hi, could someone add [[fi:Kaiken teoria]] to the list of other wikipedias articles? 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. JRSpriggs 05:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I think that would defeat the purpose because the theory of everything is the theory of everything. In other words, the theory of everything is complete and nothing is undefined. According to the TOE Everything is one thing divided by nothing. That's a mathematical definition also. I agree that string theory should be removed. We need to replace it with the right definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Betanon (talkcontribs) on 16:22, 25 February 2007.

TOE does have a very specific meaning. It talks about the unified field, and the unified field is, quite simply, undivided - the one thing completely divided by nothing. You will realize the TOE when you realize the one MATHEMATICAL NUMBER which completely describes the TOE is also the one which many were afraid of and labeled undefined. Allow me to clarify the truth: 1/0 IS the reciprocal of zero. 1/0 IS the opposite of nothing. 1/0 IS everything - the total amount of energy in existence EXCLAMATION POINT!!!!
This is the mathematical point where positive and negative infinity become the same thing! It didn't make sense to mathematicians of old because they thought it was "just a contradiction," but it should make sense to us now that it's made simple. Here's the key. 1/0 is more than just a contradiction, it is a CONSISTENT contradiction. So what is a consistent contradiction anyway??? Something that you can't escape!
It is the beautiful irony of the truth portrayed in the yin yang symbol. Yin yang symbol means the point where positive and negative infinity become the same thing. Yin yang symbol means the exact same thing as 1/0. You wanted a TOE? Well this is it! It is the marriage symbol, representing true love, which shows two circles overlapping eachother. One circle is negative infinity and the other is positive infinity (male and female). Like a venn diagram, the mandorla formed by the overlapping of the circles is where positive and negative infinity meet and become ONE.
Here is a list of the logos and ads which employ this symbol: Mastercard, Kool Cigarettes, DC shoes, Chanel jewelry, Yoga Booty Ballet, CBS, Double Tree hotels, Woody's food chain stores, and the list goes on and on
Why do so many people use the image of two interlocking circles? Because, it is the symbol of all symbolism.
When the universe begins expanding so fast that two points a planck distance apart begin receding away from eachother at greater than lightspeed then space/time will completely tear and everything will reverse. This is sometimes called the "big rip" but what they don't realize is it's really the "big reversal." It is the point where positive infinity meets with negative infinity.
I'm just trying to let you all know! It's been in front of us all along! It is all about the marriage symbol! It's the same thing as the mastercard logo!!! You would have never guessed it, but how easy can it be?? Just translate 1/0 from math to english and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Not undefined. Indivisble! It's something that you can't escape. Now go forth and spread the word! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) on 18:53, 23 March 2007.
Please can someone do something about the person posting this 1/0 nonsense. Its cluttering up valid points with rubbish (IMHO). The Yeti 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a single-purpose account that makes a flurry of edits once every couple of months. I suggest politely explaining WP:NOR to them, as a first-pass solution. --Christopher Thomas 01:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this prediction really nonsense? "When the universe begins expanding so fast that two points a planck distance apart begin receding away from eachother at greater than lightspeed then space/time will completely tear and everything will reverse." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) on 13:56, 25 March 2007.

Yes, that sentence appears to be nonsense. The universe doesn't "remember" how big a patch of space once was and do something special when it grows past a certain size. If, at a given time, a patch of the universe was the Planck size before the inflationary epoch, that just means that any density fluctuations dating from that time will have grown larger than the observable universe by the time the edges of the region are moving FTL relative to each other (as any density fluctuation from that time would have been at least the Planck length in size). Other patterns that form afterwards may still be observable, and any gravitationally-bound structures formed post-inflation might still be observable long after space expanded by the degree mentioned (though generally only if the observer is gravitationally bound with them). --Christopher Thomas 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be a garbled description of the Big Rip, though. What happens in that case is the _rate_ of expansion becomes arbitrarily high, causing the size of the observable universe to become arbitrarily small and forces on bound objects to become arbitrarily high. What is expected to happen in a universe expanding in that manner is for bound objects, including non-elementary particles, to be torn into their component elementary particles (which would involve quarks constantly being created, as tearing apart a particle made of quarks gives enough energy for new quark/antiquark pairs to form to seal the broken bonds). In practice, new physics is expected to take effect when the size of the observable universe shrinks to the Planck length (as general relativity is not expected to be an accurate model under those conditions), meaning a universe experiencing a Big Rip would not approach the final stage in exactly the manner described (its behavior would change in important but unknown ways before it reached the final stage). --Christopher Thomas 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Christopher, I have accurately predicted what will happen at the end of time or the big rip as you call it. It's not a big rip, it's a big reversal. Basically think about it like this. Let's pretend that the only reason that time moves forward is because the universe is expanding. Now the universe is expanding faster and faster and this is changing its properties more and more. If the universe expands so fast that it rips then everything will actually become torn apart and thrown into reverse instantaneously. Ultimately the sequence of numbers in the progression of change travels in a circular timeline, from 0 to 1/0 on the positive and then from 1/0 back down to 0 on the negative and so on and so forth. Right now we're on the positive side of time, right? And 1/0 is the point where positive infinite expansion instantly flips and becomes negative infinite expansion. So you see, it's going to be a big reversal, not a big rip. I figured it out G. It'll happen whenever two objects seperated by a planck distance or less begin expanding away from eachother at the speed of light or greater. Its the new math of 1/0 bro, and it's going to change the way we think about everything forever. The theory of everything broo. Go forth and spread the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) on 16:24, 26 March 2007.

grammar mistake

"The motivation behind this approach began with the Kaluza-Klein theory in which it was noted that adding one dimension to general relativity would produce the electromagnetic Maxwell's equations."

-equations are not electromagnetic. i do not know what is supposed to be meant by this sentence, as i have not studied it yet. maybe "the electromagnetism IN Mawell's equations" would make more sense? BriEnBest 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make that sentence clearer by changing it to "The motivation behind this approach began with the Kaluza-Klein theory in which it was noted that applying general relativity to a five dimensional universe (with the usual four dimensions plus one small curled-up dimension) yields the equivalent of the usual general relativity in four dimensions together with Maxwell's equations (electromagnetism, also in four dimensions).". I hope that is better. JRSpriggs 10:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


With the occasional exception of trying to caveat to editors, HTML comments in article space aren't a good idea.

I move the two sections here, if anyone wants to discuss their inclusion:

1Z deleted OR/POV "Finally, some theorists believe that a comprehensive TOE will, out of necessity, include information on how the nonexistent primary creative force and the existent ongoing creative process relates to the universe and its contents".

In light of Gödel's incompleteness theorem

Stanley Jaki was among the first to recognize the significance of Gödel's Incompleteness theorem for 'theories of everything' in theoretical physics. Gödel's theorem states that any non-trivial mathematical theory will be either incomplete or inconsistent. Jaki says that since any 'theory of everything' will certainly be a non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be either incomplete or inconsistent, thus dooming searches for a deterministic theory of everything in which all the parameters are defined internally and consistently. (Jaki 2005)

IMHO before putting his ideas into this article, most likely violating undue weight, the Stanley Jaki article would deserve some expansion, most importantly to give his opinions more explicitely and to tell us about his reception.

Pjacobi 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Theory_of_everything#Jaki_stuff_is_seriously_problematic for further discussion on this matter 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


While it is probably futile to discuss this with John Smith, who just follows me around to revert and edit war with me from disputes we often have on politics related articles, the other editor is a different case.

Giovanni, you need to stop making allegations about everyone you disagree with. You've edited other articles I have. If you want to argue I maliciously follow you around then you are condemning yourself for your past behaviour. John Smith's 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone, just you. Do you deny your wikistalking me, or is it just coincidence that you happen to find yourself here to revert me on this article in all of wikipedia? And the same with other articles I happen to come across, which then follow the same pattern? Strange how you are the only one that does this to me. So I guess that does make it "everyone who does this to me," but that is still one person--you.Giovanni33 09:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni, it's rather petty of you to accuse me of wikistalking when this is the only page I do not normally visit that I have edited against you.
As I pointed out, if you believe I am wikistalking then your past edits mean you did the same thing to me. John Smith's 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

About Marx, yes he did write mostly on Society, Economics, and Politics, History, as you point out but he also had a philosphical system which could be and was applied to Nature. For instance, Engles book Dialectics of Nature. If you look at that section in the articke, it deals with "all encompassing systems," and gave examples of other philosophers who create such a system. It need not have been about the Universe per se (although there are Marxist perspectives on theories of the origins of the universe, big bang, etc--applying its methodology and assumtions).

Marx, in addition to the above, also was a philosopher, whose philosophical system qualifies--in particular his dialectical materialism. Infact, dialectical method akin to Hegals is exactly such an all-encompassing philosophical method on all of reality. This is why it's apropos to include Hegel, whose dialectically dynamic model of nature and of history is such an outlook/system regarding it as a fundamental aspect of the nature of reality --Marx simply rooted this is materiaism (turned it upside down, or right side up). Its a question of (epistemology), an assertion of the interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic nature of the world outside our perception of it (ontology), and more improtantly a methodology. So while you are correct, it is also correct to include Marx's for his system as well for this point. If we disgaree I'm sure we can discuss this on the talk page instead of reverting each other after 24 hours as John Smith is content to suggest.Giovanni33 21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the links you've supplied, and it seems that Marx was concerned almost exclusively with sociology in applying his philosophies (in particular, applying them to explain how societies developed throughout history). The section you added it to is listing philosophers who attempted to explain the physical world. Engels apparently did try to apply Marx's ideas to the physical world, instead of just the people in it, but the Wikipedia article about the book is a stub, and the article about Engels highlights his political career and thoughts about the philosophy underlying social development, so it doesn't seem to have been his primary interest.
My own feeling is that the section should be limited to discussing philosophers who put major effort into developing an explanation for the physical world, and even then should be limited to the most notable of these (I might have just left it at Aristotle and Plato if I were writing it, but I'm not a philosophy major). A more complete treatment would be at Theory of everything (philosophy).
I'm certainly open to discussion about it; my opinion is just one of many (though I do think I have a good handle on the intent and contents of the article as a whole). If we're looking for more opinions, I'd be happy to set up a straw poll, though this is strictly for gathering more thoughts on the matter (straw polls aren't intended to be a binding vote, and rarely end up producing a consensus on their own). What are the two of your thoughts regarding doing this? --Christopher Thomas 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion barely began and we're already at the polling stage? Not good. ;) I think it merits inclusion. As well, although Marx did not write about the topic himself, he did help edit Anti-Dühring where some of these notions were expressed (at no point voicing objections), so we can presume he implicitly agreed with the concepts which were later further articulated in the Dialectics of Nature. El_C 02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The main purpose of a straw poll would be to get more eyes and more opinions on the matter. As this discussion had appeared to me to be stagnating, this seemed like a good idea to me (and still does).
As for Marx, I'm deeply suspicious of arguments that rely on demonstrating indirectly that he supported applying his philosophies to the physical world at large. If Engels wrote the book, why not cite him instead?
Lastly, as previously stated, this is meant to be a representative list of a handful of the most important thinkers on the matter, not an exhaustive list. In my opinion, this discussion would be better focused by asking "Is Engels (or Hegel or anyone else) one of the 5 most notable people who thought about philosophies of the physical world?", rather than "Did Engels (or Marx or whoever else) think about it at all?". Save any exhaustive list for Theory of everything (philosophy) or other appropriate articles. --Christopher Thomas 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
We are just getting started with our own discussion so its premature to seek out others at this stage, I think. We don't really have an impase yet. As to what you wrote, first I thank you for expressing yourself, but I think you miss the point and are confused about the matter (the nature and context of this section in question--(or perhaps I am). This is not about listing the most important thinkers on the matter of the "theory of everything." This is not even about listing thinkers who talked mainly about the physical world per se. Go back and look at the section and what it tries to do. Its about a few of the most outstanding examples of thinkers who devised a types of all encompassing system/world view which can then be applied to help explain everything else---no matter what field or discipline you apply its methodology to.
This was the point of listing Marx as an outstanding example of just such a system. Any subject that you can think of there is a Marxian take on it. Be it art/ aesthetics, literature, mathematics, biology, geography, science in general, and of course we are most familiar with all the social areas where Marx has the greatest influence in such as criminology, sociology, political economy, theory of history, journalism, etc. That it’s an all-encompassing system is the point that is being made. Does not make it necessarily related to the TOE, or even the "physical world." For if that were the criteria, how would you justify including Plato? He fits only because he is a good example along the same lines as I explain: because of his all encompassing (albeit religiously based} objective idealism expressed in his metaphysics, i.e. Platonic realism, his Universal and Theory of forms. The system is universal enough so that we can derive a Platonic view and interpretation for almost anything, just as we can with Marx. When I say Marx, I mean the system that is attributed to him, Marxism (even though it was a collaborate effort with Engel’s and then later thinkers applying “Marxian” modes of analysis.
I only raised Engle’s work on Nature and Science because it makes the point clear that Marxist philosophy indeed strives for exactly a kind of “unified field theory of the sciences” which includes both “natural” and “humanistic." Dialectical materialism, as elaborated by Marx and Engel’s was concerned with much more than political economy; it asserts itself as an encompassing worldview explicitly. When he wrote about Nature, Engels was trying to show the universality in application for materialism and dialectics. He even writes in Anti-During: "My recapitulation of mathematics and the natural sciences was undertaken in order to convince myself also in detail…that in nature amid the welter of innumerable changes, the same dialectical laws of motion force their way through as those which in history govern the apparent fortuitousness of events…" With Marx's works in mathematics, he like wise regarded knowledge its knowelege (of mathematics) as essential to ‘a conception of nature which is dialectical and at the same time materialist’. (Anti-Dühring, p. 15} [3] Marx studied mathematics as Engels wrote, as an attempt “to produce an encyclopedic survey of our conception of the philosophical, natural-science and historical problems.” Some more works of note that touched on science, whichi make this clear:
The Holy Family, Marx, 1845
Part Played by Labour in the Transition From Ape to Man,Engels 1876
Anti-Dühring, Engels 1877
On Dialectics 1878
Time and Space
Cosmogony, Physics, Chemistry
The Organic World
The Organic World. Conclusion
Mathematical Manuscripts, Marx 1881
The Dialectics of Nature, Engels 1883Giovanni33 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

DiaMat isn't a theory of everything, but a method of everything. Yes, it was also an attempt of an “unified field theory of the sciences” -- but that doesn't imply a unified theory of all phenomena. Marx, Engels and Lenin (Materialism and Empirio-criticism) may have thought to be in posession of the correct and most efficent method to gather knowledge about the material world, but they surely didn't believe they were already in posession of all knowledge about the material world. --Pjacobi 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Call it a theory, a method, philosophy of science or what not: dialectical materialism unifies materialism and dialectics. Engels wrote that:

dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature.

Anyway, Alan Woods and Ted Grant's Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science seems like an encompassing enough attempt. El_C 10:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Pjacobi, exactly correct. However, the point of the section is dealing with just such a philosophy; some thinkers have attempted to construct all encompassing systems. Marxism is definitely in that category. It is not a theory of everything but its a theory that can be applied to everything in terms of anaysis and further understanding, hence it being all encompassing in nature. That was all that this addition of Marx was meant to illustrate. Its a good example in this respect, and should be included for the same reason that Plato and Hegal are included. For balance, there should be a materialist outlook given as an example, I think. Giovanni33 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From my reading above, Pjacobi does not disagree in principal. Correct me if I'm wrong. Therefore, I see this as 3 editors who see this addition as valid. John Smith hassn't made any argument, so its really just one editor who is correctly waiting for proper consensus. I've waited and don't see any further disputes to the points above, so I am going to restore the bit. If someone disagrees, I'd hope they can further discuss the matter here.Giovanni33 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, don't make arbitrary decisions as to what people do and do not mean. There are other people (apart from myself) who disagree with your desired inclusion. Why not get them to agree first? I will not revert if both Pjacobi and Christopher Thomas agree with you. John Smith's 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What I find especially confusing is the fixation on Marx, when it was Engels who actually published the main work about applying the philosophy to the physical world. Why exactly is it Marx and not Engels who should be cited? An argument for Engels might actually have convinced me.--Christopher Thomas 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Your still missing the point. The point is not who applied the method to an analysis of he natural world, the point is the philosophy itself it given to the nature of being able to be applied in such a universal fashion. Its the method itself that is of import, and Marx is given credit for the philosophy, although it is acknowelged that it was a colaboration with Engles. If you want to put Marx and Englels, I have no objection. But if if you are looking for actual application of the method to nature as the test, then you miss the point of this section.Giovanni33 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, application of philosophical methods to nature is exactly the point of this section. The more general case belongs at Theory of everything (philosophy). --Christopher Thomas 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Then explain how Hegal and Plato fit in to such a case? If that is really the point of the section then the section needs to be re-written because that is not what it says. Currently it mentions a philosophical theory of everything, and states, "Some philosophers — Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Whitehead — have attempted to construct all-encompassing systems." All-encompassing systems is what it refers to in the realm of philosophy. It says nothing about writers who acutally applied any given system to nature. That it CAN be and HAS been would logically follow, but that is NOT the pont. Rather, it is its ability to, that is the point. A writer who applies such a system/method to nature to explain and illustrate the "rules" of nature, only illustrates the larger point of the nature of the system being all-encompassing. These are two distinct points. Perhaps this is too subtle?Giovanni33 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
By all means, propose such a rewritten version. This article, per the move discussion above, and per its introduction, is about the physics concept "theory of everything" (a complete description of the rules governing the natural world). The subsections on "philosophy" and "religion" should be considered in that context. --Christopher Thomas 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And it is in that context, i.e. the philosophical equivalent: an all-encompassing system that has universal applicability to the "rules" of all phenomenon in nature and otherwise. As a philosophical system it has a wider scope that dealing directly with physics or nature only. Everything is everything. Philosophical systems that fall into that category are the point being made, correctly--not to writers who have then applied the system to nature in particular. It is already given that such a system can be applied to nature. That Engles did so illustrates the point of Marx's method, namely that it is all-encompassing. If you insist that this only mention thinkers who directly wrote primarily about nature and the physical world, then answer my question (which you have previously ignored): Why do you not object to Plato or Hegal on these grounds? Explain that.Giovanni33 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
As the author of the passage in question, my only intention was to illustrate the relationship between physical and philosophical TOE's. The page is not really about philosophy, and the names mentioned are only illustrative, not exhaustive.1Z 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. That is my understanding as well. Marx is likewise illustrative, from a more materialist philosophical system, as opposed to Hegal and Plato.Giovanni33 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Marx hardly invented materialism. 1Z 21:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. Who ever said he did? I only mentioned materialism because Marx represents one branch in the school of materialism. The other philosophical systems given with Plato and Hegal are both representatives of different schools of idealism. The addition of Marx then adds a materialist philosophy of everything for appropriate balance to the other two.Giovanni33 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel comfortable with the article mentioning the evil "economist" Karl Marx as if he was the author of a physical theory (or philosophical theory which includes a physical theory). I suggest that the section be rewritten to refer to specific books (rather than persons) which present philosophical theories which imply physical theories of everything, or dropped altogether. JRSpriggs 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the rationale of simply not liking Karl Marx as a basis to find some way of excluding him as a proper representative of a philosopher whose philosophical system (dialectical materialism) fits the description of the passage. This amounts to POV pushing by ommission.Giovanni33 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not merely "simply not like" Marx. His misleading theories have been used to justify the murder of hundreds of millions of people. He is objectively evil. And his "philosophy" pretends to deal with everything while in fact being merely a rationalization for hating people for belonging to different social classes. JRSpriggs 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a profound misunderstanding of Marx and his ideas, but we are not here to debate this topic. Suffice it to say we disagree about this POV, politically, but again, this is not relevant. That you use your political views as the basis for making edits here is what is not allowed per policy, and what I object to.Giovanni33 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The evilness or non-evilness of a philosopher is frankly not relevant to whether or not they are included in this article. A litmus test I'd accept is how much they (Marx or anyone else) wrote or were recorded as speaking about construction of a philosophical system with an explicitly stated goal or consequence of explaining the natural world.--Christopher Thomas 06:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why is it you don't apply this same ostensive standard to the other philosphers listed, i.e. Hegal and Plato? I've asked you this question at least three times and you have just ignored it. I think it speaks to a double standard and thus points to the real objection not being the real objection you have with Marx, whose philosophical system is just as encompassing, and even more related to, applied to, and has as a consequence, applicablity to the natural world as demonstrated by the references offered above.Giovanni33 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You asked this question exactly once before, and I'll give you the same answer now that I did then: Propose an alternate list matching these criteria, and I'll gladly look at it. Checking Hegel's article, it looks like he was mainly concerned with things other than the physical world, so I can see a good argument for his removal from the list. Plato, however, did deal in a significant way with the question of the nature of the material world (see Platonic realism), so I'd argue that it should be kept. --Christopher Thomas 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that instead of admitting that Marx fits according to the criteria clearly stated in the section and whose purpose has already been explained, you want to change it so as to exclude Marx. But then the problem is that all those other philosophical systems listed don't match, of course (yet you dont have a problem with them until I point out the glaring double-standard). The fact is that the criteria as listed for the purpose of the section is to illustrate the relationship between physical and philosophical TOE's, that is the Theory of everything with philosphers who have constructed a philosophical method that is all-encompassing. These listed philosphers and their respective system match up according to such a purpose. I can't stress this point enough.
You say it looks like Hegal was mainly concerned with other things, but Plato dealth with the natural world, etc. Actually, no, not really. Plato did not talk any more about a description of the natural world as we use and understand the term, but talked about those "other things" you find with Hegel.
It may be that you are not familiar with Plato's philosophical system. His universals and forms pertain to abstract conceptions devoid of matter (non-extended). Plato proposed a metaphysical, and rather mystical religious system; he was very much opposed to the methods of experimental science, and held contempt for making observations. For Plato, the "World Soul" is was an a-priori metaphysical principle, and the natural world was merely a reflection of some higher form of reality, located in the "soul." His abstract and eternal forms (existing outside of time and space) are metaphysically foundational--the unseen world of true realities, given to knowledge by use of the intellect. To Plato, unlike Aristotle, one does not perceive the world with use of the senses. Thus, is his theory of forms, universals, particulars, etc, that you reference in Plantoic realism. If you maintain that this Plantic system of Objective Idealism is a philosophy concerned with the natural world, then by the same token you must accept Hegel’s system, which as similarly all-encompassing with his notion of the "World Sprit." However, I don't think you mean this. Marxism, actually, is much more concerned with a description of the natural world, embracing the basis of which the natural sciences rest on--observation and the scientific method--but its dialectics is a method that is all encompassing for both human society and the natural world alike, hence fundamental, universal, and all-encompassing. The works cited above explicitly and impliedly state such. But, even if you don't accept these assertions, you have to accept that the philosophical system of Marxism is just as much dealing about Nature (reality), as Plato's system is or be guilty of applying a double standard. Giovanni33 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What a lot of verbiage about a single sentence in the article, and one that can be so easily dispensed with! Do we have any sources talking about Plato or Hegel constructing a "theory of everything"? Probably not. In which case just get rid of all references to philosophers from before the term "theory of everything" was coined. They're not encyclopedically relevant, and talking about them here is original research. --Trovatore 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That is actually a good point. Unless we have a source making the point that this section is making, i.e. a philosophical all encompassing system that is compared to the concept of the physics theory of the Theory of everything, then it would be OR. But, note that the section does not say that Hegal, Plato, et al. actually contructed a "theory of everything," just that they have one that is philosophically all encompassing. Lets look for some sources and report on what we find. If we can't find any, its best to dispense with the section as OR.Giovanni33 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Should the movie The Theory of Everything (2006) be mentioned? --Yancyfry 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted section on religion

I didn't feel the following was supported by the references supplied in the article, so I moved it to the talk page. Silly rabbit 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Theory of Everything and religion == Many theists believe the universe should operate according to consistent principles because they believe it to have been designed by a rational and orderly deity:

God saw everything he had made, and indeed, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)

Some theists believe no TOE will be found, while some others speculate that a TOE would provide a new concept of this deity as a universal teleological principle — a natural phenomenon, rather than supernatural. Yet other theists believe that the discovery of a TOE would not change anything in regards to their belief. Others expect that a TOE, like modern physics, would be agnostic as it would by definition describe only the universe — this is assuming, however, that deities would be separate from the universe.


I've taken the liberty to add "Physicists believe this unification is possible due to the fact that the current theoretic ideas seem to converge towards a single theory. For example, from general relativity it is known that gravity travels at the speed of light and not instantaneous as predicted by Newton. This seem to show some kind of underlying symmetry, as it is peculiar that both gravity and electromagnetism propagates a the speed of light." as i thought that it needed to stated why physicists even believe that this unification is possible. Sorry for the bad english and please correct mistakes and grammar errors. --Bilgrau 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

== Primitive Metter the Progenitor of different Fields == MITRA U.

Self Creation Cosmology>>> Grand Unification Theory ==

Indian mythological "Ishwar Tatva" is very near to self creation cosmology. The subtle matter "Ishwar Tatva" is not only the cause of creation or gradual synthesis of matter but also the progenitor of different fields.

  Initially our Universe was filled up by such a medium henceforth named "SWADHA". The medium Swadha was distributed homogeneously through out the universe having properties as under.
  It was made up of very tiny particle several thousand time smaller then electron, these momentum carrying particles were moving randomly in all possible directions with tremendous speed (of the order light travels in space). Here and after called Momentisons. These particles ordinarily exhibit all such properties as considered in kinetic theory.
  These particles agglomerate in special circumstances to make bigger and bigger particles such as nucleons and other particles. Agglomerated big particles when come closer changes the local distribution of the medium Swadha, hence creating different fields popularly known as Gravitational, Electrostatic, Weak and nuclear depending on the relative size and distance of two or more particles.........
    The concept starts with very simple logic, there is nothing illogical to gulp, not only it explains all the fields but by supporting “Steady state theory” it describes the creation of Universe starting from the synthesis of first nucleon to the last stage of matter “The Black Holes”…………

Work in progress Done now!

I foolishly suggested that the "family tree" of theories created by User: for the now-defunct "Superforce" article should be incorporated here. This has prompted quite a drastic addition/revision to the article. Please don't pass judgement for a day or so... I plan to add a "meta" section discussing such issues as emergence, free-floating laws, whether a TOE is possible and whether it would be any use if it was. PaddyLeahy 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented out a couple of items: notably the long last paragraph of the "modern physics" section discussing various features of general relativity. The work cited was not (with one possible exception) directed explicitly at a theory of everything, or even an old-fashioned unified field theory. Nor was it obvious to me what point was being made in this paragraph: was it defending GR as a basis for a TOE or attacking it? In either case this seems to count as original research, specifically the case where items which are individually well sourced are combined to suggest new conclusions not contained in any of the original sources. PaddyLeahy 22:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert Call answered

Expert call has been answered. 1/0=unified field=everything. Means 2nd law reversible. Time will reverse after big rip. Please talk it over and reach a decision. Time is of the essence. New understanding of energy will provide opportunity to fix global crisis. Answer will not appear in peer reviewed journal. Information provided direclty to the people. Please do not ignore - theory of everything vital at this crossroads

Your theory does not belong here(WP:OR) and please discontinue you removal of internal links--Cronholm144 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research! You guys are the ones who made up 1/0 not me. Damn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:04:07, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Commented out text

This article had accumulated a fair amount of commented-out text which seemed to be off-topic (including a large chunk commented out by me a week ago). Since no-one has tried to restore it I have now deleted the text from the article page (it can be found in the history of course). PaddyLeahy 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Query on theory family tree

the above tree is flawed. The electric and magnetic force were never unified. They are the same force (they never broke) if you list them, then its only fair to list gravitomagnetic, hypercharge, and all the others. And what is the 'color force'! Its the same thing as the strong force! Dunno how to work family trees, but could someone else please remove them?

--(added as a comment on the article page at 00:19, 13 August 2007 by User:Wing gundam; moved to here by me.) PaddyLeahy 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Response: The tree represents the historical structure of the way forces were unified, not a logical analysis of the structure of current theories. Obviously electric and magnetic forces were not originally recognised as aspects of the same force. Gravitomagnetic "forces" were not conceived of until general relativity was carefully analysed, so have never been recognised as a distinct force. Hypercharge is not a force but a way of classifying particles. Color force is the inter-quark force carried by gluons described by quantum chromodynamics; the "old" strong force, i.e. the Yukawa binding of nucleons via pions (mainly), is a low-energy side-effect of the color force. Most of this would become apparent to anyone who followed the links in the tree, but feel free to add clarification to this article if you think it appropriate. PaddyLeahy 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but originally hypercharge was thought of as another force, and a GUT (or a TOE) would unify it with electromagnetic, weak, and gravity. I still don't see why it is necessary to have two separate labels, for color force and strong force. If this tree shows how they were unified, then it is meaningless to differentiate between Strong force and residual strong force. Nonetheless, the gravitomagnetic force was 'conceived', just as the others were. If the tree observes a difference between 'color' and residual force, then shouldn't the gravitomagnetic force be placed with the others (if this tree is designed to show forces based on historical terms)? And nowhere in the section is it stated that it IS designed this way. Wouldn't it be more logical in an article entitled "Theory of everything" to have a tree showing how the "Theory of everything" is structured, rather than how its composite forces were historically unified? (signed late) Wing gundam 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well on the last point, I would agree if there was a theory of everything, but at the moment it is just a dream so we don't know its actual structure. This tree seems quite intuitive to me, which is why I put it on this page. I had never heard that about hypercharge, (but I'm not a particle physicist). I agree the tree is not 100% logical, but there is quite an important difference between QCD and the "strong force" as originally conceived when people started talking about the "four forces", so I think it is defensible. Feel free to add a sentence to the text clarifying what the tree does and does not show if you think it will help. Or if you want the tree re-designed you could ask User: who made it (I don't understand the template either). PaddyLeahy 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaki again

In reply to Pluke above, consider the good advice of Pjacobi above at #Jaki on researching reception. Jaki's diatribe [4] does him no favours, as rather than make his argument carefully, he just castigates Hawking & Gell-Mann for being slow to cotton on, and Weinberg, Penrose, Einstein, and, er, Gödel for not seeing the point (not to mention an unseemly sideswipe at fellow Templeton-winner Davies). Somehow my money is on the other team. If you do want to try again, I suggest you consult Jaki's original presentation in The relevance of Physics where, perhaps, he makes a more coherent case. But given that he thinks he proved his "Jaki-Gödel Theorem" in only three pages, I suspect that it fails to address the obvious criticisms mentioned by JRSpriggs. Jaki's comments seem to depend on a conflation of the very different notions of completeness in physics and number theory. Hawking's point is far more subtle than that. PaddyLeahy 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Jaki article does him no favours, and don't think a focus on him here would be proper or wholly appropriate. However, some mention of this line of thought, especially that from Hawking would be useful seeming as it appears to be a restructuring of an argument he places in a brief history of time. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point. Annoyingly I don't think I'm the one to do this and if someone with formal Physics qualifications could give it a shot that would be great... Thanks Pluke 17:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Restructuring as in reversal, I think. Gödel is not in the index of "Brief History of Time". There Hawking was expecting a theory of everything pretty soon. Hawking's comments in the 2002 talk are a bit brief & ambiguous to work into the article, I think. PaddyLeahy 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, restructuring should read as reversal or another synonym. I suppose this is where we disagree, with the three authors, including Hawkings, pulling a similar line, I think it is worthy of inclusion here. But I wont jump in if there is this much adverse feeling to it. I personally don't think that the 'proof' of this theory requires much more that which hawkings and jaki show, I'm not fully familiar with the writings of the other. It is a philosophical proof based on mathematical proven premises. But that's my simple outlook on it. Now if we could find a published criticism of this theory then we could have both sides. I apologise for the original addition to the article not being too balanced, it was posted verbatim from another article. Pluke 09:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
"in a review for the New York Review of Books two years ago of Brian Greene’s, The Fabric of the Cosmos, Freeman Dyson wrote: Gödel’s theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. … because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them. [NYRB, May 13, 2004]. So, according to Dyson’s argument, there can’t be a Theory of Everything." page 15. It also appears that Solomon Feferman, who wrote the above has a rebuttal (a small one) to the line of argument placed by Jaki, Hawkins, Davies and Dyson. Will read over in more detail in the next few days when i get time. So we could now have a for and against the argument. The sheer weight in names supporting this argument surely gives it some credence, I'll try and rewrite it shortly, or if someone else wants to, please jump in. Pluke 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
With reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorem
Several scientists claim that Gödel's incompleteness theorem proves any attempt to develop a TOE impossible. Stanley Jaki pointed out in The Relevance of Physics that Gödel's theorem states that any non-trivial mathematical theory will be either incomplete or inconsistent and since any 'theory of everything' will certainly be a non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be either incomplete or inconsistent, thus dooming searches for a deterministic theory of everything in which all the parameters are defined internally and consistently.[1]. Freeman Dyson supports this view stating
Stephen Hawkings was originally a believer in the arrival at Thoery of Everything but through use of Gödel's Theorem concluded that one was not obtainable.
The acceptance of this view is not universally held and has been argued against by Solomon Feferman[2]
(de-indent) I think your current version gives too much weight to Jaki. By the way, there is no s in Hawking's surname. --Trovatore 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, please feel free to jump in and correct, I imagine there are a few more mistakes lurking in there, i updated the article page so you may want to jump into that or remove it and work on this here for a while. Jaki probably snuck itself in there as I'm most familiar with his work. Feferman needs expanding. Need to spend more time on this, but if you can help please do. Pluke 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Census request

we need to receive a concensus or at least discuss the issue of all the links in the see also section besides "unified field theory." All those links except unified field theory are "contest" links.

I don't understand what issue you have with the links. For example, why is Theory of everything (philosophy) a bad link? Please state your case more clearly if you want to build consensus for the removal of these links. It may help to do a case-by-case discussion. Cheers, Silly rabbit 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thank you for the invitation and I am glad to extend the case at hand. The issue here is that we need a definitive article about this concept known as the "theory" of everything and there should be absolutely no confusion. The theory of everything is exactly that, and nothing less. It is not a theory of everything (philosophy), or a list of alternative theories. It is THE theory period. It can also be referred to as the unified field theory, for it is the ultimate description of the one "unified" field out of which everything is "theoretically" made. Now it does not take a genious to realize that the word "unified" means the same thing as the phrase "divided by nothing," but alas, the dogmatic mathematicians are having a hard time catching up with blatant common sense. READ, blatant common sense, not original research.
See also entries such as string theory are "contest" links, not only because they are contested and have provided NO definitive answer but also because their creators think that this whole "game" is a contest to win personal glory and inevitably the nobel prize. But the theory of everything is not a contest nor is it about glamour or glory. It is about understanding that a unified field is divided by nothing. This has philosophical, physical, and social implications - because the one undivided field is a field of consciouse energy, naturally. And if it is an undivided field as the theory suggests, then that means limitless energy. Just consider the number 1/0 and what it truely means and you will see there is no contest.
I have said enough for now and I wish to see yours and everyone else's response. In closing I just want to say that the theory of everything is not a contest between string theory, the theory of everything (philosophy), the list of alternative theories, m theory, superstring theory, or whatever undemonstrated theory you like to put. The theory of everything is exactly what it says, and nothing less. It is THE theory. It is the description of the unified field of "consciousness" that creates everything. It is really the same thing as one thing divided by nothing and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an original researcher to figure out that that means unified; it just takes a moment in time. Please let us have no more contest links. Let there be no more confusion. Let us have a definitive article for this most definitive theory that is straightforward and not confusing at all. It is the theory of everything afterall and the only other name it goes by is unified field theory, aka undivided field theory, aka the definition of 1/0. WIth great respect to the wikipedia community and it's cause, I am known as Archetype. Now I respectfully leave the floor to you.

Allrighty then, offer for good discussion going once, going twice...

Well, I must say I am thoroughly unimpressed with yall's ability to discuss the theory of everything which you are designed to be able to understand as human beings. Pity, for I had a dream once that it would be easy for those with apt minds to understand the unoriginal research done by all human kind, which says, as a simple matter of english, that in order for a field to be unified in the pure sense of the term it must therefore be divided by no thing. Once we all finally and of course arrive at the advent of realization, that the unified field and all those who inhabit it are united, for light and all that forms the unified field seperates not in theory, then we will be able to discuss that which has been set before us since time immemorial to understand.
Particularly is my heart dissappointed by Silly Rabbit, who so excellently made the suggestion that we hold a discussion on this page, but who, when I extended the issue, so un-excellently seemed to dissappear into thin air. It is clear to see that nobody is willing to put forth the effort to make this a better article - either that or none of ya'll are organized enough to make any kind of agreement. Well, your expert call has been answered. Now have you been silenced?
Oh well, it is all just a good. Someone must now carry on in the name of justice. Until somebody finally starts talking, contest links will be removed every day from now untill eternity. If you wish to block all the ip adresses here at Tech and deprive everyone the right to participate in wikipedia as you have so tried to deprive me, then there is nothing to stop you. You have free will as granted to you by the TOE. However, know that everything will stop at nothing, and as I am part of everything just as you are I will use whatever ip address there is on the planet earth to carry on the cause of justice. So, it seems you have met your expert foe. Perhaps, if you change your mind and decide to open it up to discussion, we will act in cohesion instead of trying to fight eachother with revert wars.
WIshing for the best, Archetype

TOE already has a basic equation to refer to.

Physics is used to explain all what is possible.

and looking at the block diagram gravity seems to be what is mysterious to the writer.

So lets begin with what is possible and what is not, by including everything possible as part of our Universe so that all else which is impossible such as magic or unexplainable details they simply be excluded..

Now the result would be a closed system where observable and or detectable changes MUST occur within the boundaries of the universe..

What is important here is we now have an unknown quanta representing our Universes Energy, and if we knew what this single dimension was equal to, we could further express its area in two, three, four or more dimensions rather than just to its quanta of Energy!

By simply dividing "E" to how many dimensions that make it possible to express what we wish to imply as an observed change is all we need..

But without knowing the total energy of our Universe, the way around this problem, is by simply working with a theoretical portion of it, in fact if I referred to E=MC^2 and implied "E"="M/C^2" and the universes two dimensional area was equal to C^2 we could in fact be working with all or only part of the whole Universe, that's if we remain ignorant that c = The speed of Light, in reality - its just a simple matter of having M equal what in reality the Universes total mass and or "m" would equal, but if we are working with a known mass then the exercise is far easier.

Any body with me on this yet or do I have to wait yet a further decade?

My point is if we divided out the universes mass and all these areas each had some potential to them, some where in the universe areas would end up being compressed via the experience of two or more meeting velocities from these areas Potential, after all our solids, liquids, Gasses, and even the near vacuum all have an amount of potential Kinetic energy and the greater the potential energy the more compressed (solid) the area is perceived to be..

So if an area is deemed to exude in all directions a decompression then why not assign it as a positive charge? if an area is deemed to be experiencing compression then why not assign the area as a negative charge.

And where two charges enmesh and cancel each other out why not assign them as neutralized and or neutrons?

Let me depict this model where the velocities are restricted to left and right only..

where to depict kinetic energy we have either a "<" or a ">" and for potential energy we have a "() symbol..

For a positive charge and or Potential we could depict it as such <()> and for a negative charge or potential we could depict it as such >()< and for our neutrons we can refer to the area with the "()" symbols..

Now lets see what two basic Atoms sharing an electron would look like.. <()>()<()>. note how an electron is not possible if we don't have two or more protons decompression, so now lets consider how compression is possible.. I will use the following symbols.. "<" this area is an area that is equal to a near vacuum where its velocity is to be to the left for one second or one could imagine the area as per stagnant, its your call. "X" this area is an area that is equal to a gas where its velocities are in both or one direction/s for one second. I will refer to a model with an area that is one symbol high by four symbols wide initially, so make a note when our theoretical area implies compression.

"<<<<" lets say this is moment one - note the area is one by four symbols wide

"X<<" here is moment two - note how an area has increased in potential via experiencing extra kinetic energy also note how the whole universe and or portion we are working with at this moment is one by only three symbols wide. (compression)

"<X<" notice how a wave is being created..


"<<<<" the opposing velocity has now traversed the area. now who here can imagine what I have expressed as one would for electron flow and or an electromagnetic wave front (photon).

So how do we explain gravity? simply by considering all of the universes mass, I mean just because it seems there are no atoms out in a near vacuum, the fact is this is not so! in fact as we ascend in our atmosphere each atom extends to ocupy a greater area than the one just below it, it should be evident that each atom is not as compressed as they are when we refer to a mess of mass such as a moon, planet, sun, galaxy and or a galaxy cluster where there are many converging velocities (gravity) and the more converging velocities the higher the potential Energy at the compression point.

If you don't get the fact that gravity is only a by-product of a perceived force resulting from mass from the rest of the universe then I guess it will take another decade or so, <sigh> This means it may take another decade or so before it is realised the Universe is not accelerating in expansion, but rather that our local mass is being exerted into Our local Black Hole, a massive compression point! - if you wish to converse more on mass and Toe then you can catch me at PhysOrgForum Aka as Laidback, as I usually dont bother folowing my inputs here..

Cheerfully yours,

Peter J Schoen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Reference for Stanislaw Lem quote

I would be interested in finding out in which book of the Tichy cycle mentioned in the article the term "TOE" was first mentioned. 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am rearing to get down to the business of reviewing some Theories of Everything and to also to present my own ideas about the fundamentals of physics but it just seems so difficult to find one's way around this site.

Anyone knows if there is a place on this website where reviews of TOE's are done?

Aerywood —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerywood (talkcontribs) 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lisi's "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"

An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything should probably have some mention on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Many hundreds of people have suggested theories of everything. The press just happened to pounce on this one. There is nothing special about it to include it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Being someone who has also discovered a perfect solution to the unified field theory allow me to say congratulations, you are not alone. We must join together colleague. Your statement that the discovery of the unified field theory only happens once in humanity is a belief that only applies under certain definitions.

It is my duty to implore you to freely release the information you have discovered, as part of your grace and honor to humanity. This grace is given as part of a balanced reciprocity, that does not expect in return. I too once desired retribution and compensation for my discovery, but I have given up that line of thinking. We must provide everything we have, and then shall we have everything provided for us. Trust is the champion of truth.

My solution for example illuminates the fact that 1/0 is defined and that it defines the Unified Field, that which is undivided, everything. Specifically, 1/0 is the greatest possibility, the absolute value, the meaning of everything, and the total amount of energy in existence. It implies that the laws of thermodynamics are reversible under certain circumstances. It implies that time is a causal time loop whereby the big bang happened because it is possible to send something faster than the speed of light. It suggests that energy is a phenomenon, not a substance, and that energy will be the means possible to travel freely to the nearest star system.

Dear Sergiy, I hope that your theory has revealed to you the nature of some new technology which will reverse the laws of thermodynamics in principle. I hope your theory comes with a solid moral framework to bolster the technologies and science fundamentals that come along with it. There is no doubt in my mind that what you are saying is the truth and that your theory can be vital to the saving of planet earth.

It is with my greatest passion that I now beseech you to come forth, as I have done, and reveal what you have discovered. Do not be afraid of casting pearls before swine because the fact is we have nothing to lose. I hope you will join me.

Regards, The Archetype —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

direct evidence for electronuclear force

"It may seem premature to be searching for a TOE when there is as yet no direct evidence for an electronuclear force," -- then what the heck is LENR? (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with not understanding the medium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

TOE science communication

With respect for the following history for the "Theory of Everything" (physics) page,

concerning this recent article addition:

(EDIT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources pointing to how new invariant laws would 'improve determinism', including this one:

In the subtractive approach one starts from an exhaustive description of space-time with all the bells and whistles and then strips this description down to its bare essentials. The recipe for doing that is to assign reality only to elements that are invariant under the group of transformations that relate different perspectives on the space-time. This group of transformations is thus directly related to some relativity principle. The most famous application of this strategy in physics is Minkowski's geometrical formulation of special relativity. The group of transformations in this case is the group of Lorentz transformations.

Also this may be extremely relevant to the case:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (A. Einstein)

Critic: After this conversation I have to admit that the refutation of your point of view is not as easy as it seemed to me earlier. I do have more objections up my sleeve. But before pestering you with that I want to think over our present conversation thoroughly. Before we depart, one more question, that does not concern an objection, but that I ask out of pure curiosity: how does the diseased man of theoretical physics fare, the Aether, that many of you have declared to be definitely dead?

Relativist: Its fortunes have taken some turns, and overall one cannot say that it is dead now. Prior to Lorentz it existed as an all-pervasive fluid, as a gas-like fluid, and other than that in the most diverse forms of being, different from author to author. With Lorentz it became rigid, and embodied the resting coordinate system, respectively a privileged state of motion in the world. According to the special theory of relativity there was no longer a privileged state of motion, this meant a denial of the Aether in this sense of the preceding theories. For if there would be an Aether, then in each space-time point there would have to be a particular state of motion, that would have to play a part in optics. There is no such privileged state of motion, as has been taught to us by the special theory of relativity, and that is why there is no Aether in the old sense. The general theory of relativity also does not know a privileged state of motion in a point, that one could vaguely interpret as velocity of an Aether. However, while according to the special theory of relativity a part of space without matter and without electromagnetic field seems to be characterized as absolutely empty, e. g. not characterized by any physical quantities, empty space in this sense has according to the general theory of relativity physical qualities which are mathematically characterized by the components of the gravitational potential, that determine the metrical behavior of this part of space as well as its gravitational field. One can quite well construe this circumstance in such a way that one speaks of an Aether, whose state of being is different from point to point. Only one must take care not to attribute to this Aether properties similar to properties of matter (for example every point a certain velocity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If this "Possible status of a theory of everything", is also a physical, updatable section, this might then be added, as the update on the subtractive approach:

this article: Paranoia, conspiracy theories and the truth about free energy.:

a notable neutral verifiable article published on a political/life/arts/science news publishing community, a specific large managed website for news articles that deserve publishing, which they may or may not do. ( so not self-published ) ; the only notable article, published by a 3rd party, directly related to this TOE theory subject of new physics laws; the truth about free energy article. The fact that this is new is not a fault

NOT ORIGINAL THOUGHT, NOT SELF PUBLISHED, everything is already in the public domain. any references and quotes from those WP:or and WP:SPS pages are dead in the water —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

16:08, 29 May 2008 Alexander Gieg (Talk | contribs) m (25,245 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by; Stop spamming. Your wiki fails WP:NOR; the article fails WP:NOT.. (TW))

16:55, 29 May 2008 (Talk) (25,585 bytes) (Undid revision 215759329 by Alexander Gieg (talk) deletionistic. see WP:NOT#OR)

17:27, 29 May 2008 McGeddon (Talk | contribs) (25,245 bytes) (rv as per WP:RS)

17:47, 29 May 2008 (Talk) (25,623 bytes) (revert, in-text attribution to comply with 'news organizations' in Wikipedia:Verifiability) (and WP:RS)

17:57, 29 May 2008 Alexander Gieg (Talk | contribs) m (25,245 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by; Per WP:RS; OpedNews isn't a RS, it's a news-blog; in Physics articles, RS are peer-reviewed scientific journals from academic presses. (TW)) (undo)

Challenge: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Where is your source that in physics articles, a reliable source is only a peer-reviewed scientific journal from an academic press; and not a respected news-blog? Please source your opinions before posting them.

Per your own [link, OpedNews is respected political blog. Not a respected physics blog. This article is about the physical theories of everything, thus what applies is WP:RS#Scholarship. If you were editing an article about the political repercussions of a hypothetical theory of everything that made free energy production / perpetual motion possible, then a link from one or more respected and notable authors among those who publish on the respected and notable political news-blog OpedNews might be appropriate (when cited as notable personal opinions, of course, not as notable facts).
Please notice that, unless OpedNews is peer-reviewed and only articles which pass editorial approval are published, even in the above scenario the author you're trying to link to would most probably be disqualified, as he has only a single article published there and thus fails the notability requirement. If OpedNews is indeed peer-reviewed, then evidently all published articles inherit OpedNews own notability, and the one you're trying to link to would be a valid link. But a valid link, well understood, in that hypothetical, currently non-existent article. Not in this one here. -- alexgieg (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaboration. I do have a problem with these characteristics:

"If you were editing an article about the political repercussions of a hypothetical theory of everything"


"in that hypothetical, currently non-existent article"

But this will only lead us in a circular thought experiment. On the page of 'TOE' itself it states that a theory of everything is literally also one of physical, metaphysical and, yes, also one of political implications (de facto a theory of everything) This negates your point about the 'theory_of_everything_political_implications' new page hypothesis

So political news is applicable

To answer your question, yes the news is peer-reviewed Other articles by the same author are also posted and published, in effect; A meta-theoretical analysis on combining particle physics with real world phenomena This might help with your notability problems

In response to WP:RS#Scholarship

From WP:RS#Scholarship:

"Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources."


"Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist)." as a response to

Other articles by the same author are also posted and published, in effect; A meta-theoretical analysis on combining particle physics with real world phenomena

the challenge continues... Where is your source that in physics articles, a reliable source is only a peer-reviewed scientific journal from an academic press; and not a respected news-blog? Please source your opinions before posting them.

It's not a circular thought. If a theory of everything is discovered, it'll surely have to explain not only politics and why someone someday decided to create a news-blog called OpedNews, but also why the theory itself exits. But since a Wikipedia article about a theory of everything isn't a theory of everything, it can be separated into sections and articles, as it in fact has. That's why, if you click the topmost link in the page, it'll lead you to a disambiguation page listing other articles which deal with the subject from different perspectives.
As for the new link you provided, it is just a link to the author's own website, and doesn't count as an article by OpedNews own standards. Click the author name, and you'll see it list just a single article. As for the authors own website,, it both isn't notable and suffers from WP:V#SELF.
About OpedNews peer-review process, I see they have two levels of authorship: "member submitter" and "trusted author submitter". It seems the author you're trying to link to is in the former category, not the latter. Top authors in the "trusted" category might be notable, yes. The others are anyone's guess. -- alexgieg (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1.The fact the author is a member submitter does not imply non-notability, as the article passed a editorial team of, as you say, notable authors

2.There is no way to initially physically peer-review a new (emphasis) theory of everything. The only way to peer-review is de facto by means of metaphysical , metatheoretical, or, yes, political/life/arts/science peer-reviewing. However, a correct theory that has physical implications should by definition reside both under the metaphysical and physical disambiguations. see Local realism and the crucial experiment from Local realism and also very much (Duhem P.,"The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

3.The new link is also a peer-reviewed link. By the same notable authors you were talking about. This is however only provided as a supplemental case of notability from the same author, and should indeed never be included on the TOE article page , only in references to notability of the author

This is a circular thought experiment

the challenge continues...


"Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources."

OpedNews isn't a RS, it's a news-blog; in Physics articles, RS are peer-reviewed scientific journals from academic presses.

Where is your source that in physics articles, a reliable source is only a peer-reviewed scientific journal from an academic press; and not a respectedpolitical news-blog? Please source your opinions before posting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A political news blog is not acceptable as a source for scientific claims: see WP:SPS. Blogs are generally not regarded as reliable on Wikipedia, regardless of the context. Furthermore, to quote the policy (emphasis my own):
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.
In context, a political news blog is clearly an inappropriate source for a physics article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1.The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.:

In context, a political news blog is clearly an inappropriate source for a physics article

True, except for the article, Theory of Everything (physics). Because this involves a hypothetical theory, any relevant assertance to its hypotheticality, from whichever field of science it may come, is by definition permitted. If this is an article on an "political/life/arts/science published news site" that mentions the existence of a theory, that exhumes relevance, neutrality and verifiability, this article may be referenced to as it's main characteristic is physical science and not politics

2. WP:SPS does not apply completely. This has been reviewed upon publication by the publisher, and peer reviewed by means of viewer comments web 2.0. Even if you would call [] a mere blog and not a special newsblog variety, these assertions about WP:SPS still hold:


if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. this information has also apparently been reported on [], not to my previous knowledge. Also see this General google search

in any case; From blog:the word blog has taken on an even looser meaning of any bit of media wherein the subject expresses his opinion or simply talks about something. This also has an impact on wikipedia's handlings of reviewed respected blogging communities on the internet as a whole. One might even say wikipedia itself is one big blogging community. And then , where do we stand, again? Where a blogging community is not respected by it's outsiders! Just making the case...

The most important thing here there are still no sources that tie articles of physics in a political context, to not being reliable in a physical manner.

the challenge continues...


OpedNews isn't a RS, it's a news-blog; in Physics articles, RS are peer-reviewed scientific journals from academic presses.

Where is your source that in physics articles, a reliable source is only a peer-reviewed scientific journal from an academic press; and not a respected political news publishing-blog? Please source your opinions before posting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Silly rabbit's answer, I add this in reply to your points four points:
1/2/3) I think you're having some difficulty understanding what is the purpose of an encyclopedia (not only Wikipedia, for that matter). It's not meant to provide a list of everything everyone everywhere ever thought about everything. It's purpose is the classify the current knowledge. This means that at some point there must be a cut, and in the case of scientific knowledge this cut is other specialized scientists studying a certain hypothesis and saying: "this has merit". This is what peer review is all about. So, are the editors of OpedNews scientists? More specifically, are they physicists? No? Then why do you think that what they think is physically reasonably has merit enough on the field of Physics to be mentioned in an Encyclopedia that has the duty of tracking what the specialists know? OpedNews has "peers" when the subject is progressive politics, not when it's the physical sciences. For as long as Wikipedia isn't the new Social Text, non-specialists in a subject won't be notable in that subject, except maybe if they're notable in the social or anthropological sphere, i.e., by being followed by other non-specialists and this producing some remarkably external ("external" as in "outside the field itself") repercussion.
4) My "source", so to speak, is the plain meaning of the Wikipedia content policy. It isn't a legal system where some small technicality can be summoned by a clever individual up to the point of inverting the original meaning of the policy. But if you think there's a need for a 3rd party to actually explicit this, you can always call for a dispute resolution. In the worst scenario, where consensus isn't reached, we can always go for a vote. -- alexgieg (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey you're calling dispute resolution on me already. Without discussing this to the bone first? To discuss the 'theory of everything' page you might be in for a long walk, tough, I'll grant you that.

1,2,3)I see there is a problem with assertising specialism. The author is a communication scientist and information theory states that this is a science of metatheoreticalism. So, pertaining specialism in the field of metatheory, what "The theory of everything" article is all about, a communication scientist is indeed a specialist.

As to your answer number 4, plain wikipedia content policy is quantified everywhere on the net. You show me a page where it says political and communication science/scientists can't be used to discuss meta-theory, and I'll consider this resolved

5) In response to your mentioning of the Sokal_affair. This is , however funny, not applicable because articles have passed a preliminary internet physical peer review ( see focus_group,new_media ) , here , here, here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the challenge was:

OpedNews isn't a RS, it's a news-blog; in Physics articles, RS are peer-reviewed scientific journals from academic presses.

Where is your source that in physics articles, a reliable source is only a peer-reviewed scientific journal from an academic press; and not a respected political news publishing-blog? Please source your opinions before posting them.

Perhaps after reading some of this you might feel this dispute is resolved, also... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Having an academic degree doesn't mean much. This is something that matters much more. Benny Cramers is so unknown, so non-notable by anyone that matters, that it's sad really. He doesn't appear anywhere: on physics papers, on information theory papers, on mathematics paper, nowhere. Only on blogs and forums, in a total of just 11 relevant results (137 with repeated results) in a general Google search. If you're him, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia won't be the platform for your self-promotion. -- alexgieg (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that guy, I just went to the website and read ' This is a working physical TOE theory ' After reading everything that was said about SR, I decided to put this so-called working physical TOE theory, with testable results, on the TOE page, as I do have a sense of information theory and an idea of referencing articles properly. I actually wasn't even speaking about specialism until you brought it up. Benny Cramers is so unknown, so non-notable by anyone that matters, that it's sad really

This could be a contradiction. there's this comment to the article mentioned, from this guy, who works for this website. It says the article itself is an excellent summary for the topic.

In any case, it is sad that you have resorted to only attacking an author, ad hominem, instead of attacking the content as to it's relevance, neutrality and verifiabilty as should be done to verify the reliability of a source. This conveys a great deal about the impossibility to falsify a correct theory, and as a matter of fact may in itself be a reason to include a reference on the TOE page about SR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the idea of a physics blog as stated in one of the first statements, you do know has 1 section Life, arts and science

the challenge is:

OpedNews isn't a RS, it's a news-blog; in Physics articles, RS are peer-reviewed scientific journals from academic presses.

Where is your source (1) that in hypothetical physics articles (meaning it's uncertain if it exists), a reliable source is only a peer-reviewed scientific journal from an academic press; and not a respected political/life/arts/science published news site? Please source your opinions before posting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My "source", so to speak, is the plain meaning of the Wikipedia content policy. It isn't a legal system where some small technicality can be summoned by a clever individual up to the point of inverting the original meaning of the policy.

This cannot possibly comply with wikipedia standards, as the technicalities you refer to, are a part of wikipedia, and are all stated on these wikipedia pages for a purpose. I now am really asking you, to try and source your bogus metaphysical assumptions about a hypothetical TOE theory, that cannot be referenced from a political/life/arts/science published news site. Especially since 'possible status on a theory of everything' now still points nowhere, except for a determinism-or-approximation analysis If you are not able to provide a source, your deletionistic revertion might be in violation with WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea of an "extension to physics laws" sounds like a simple enough angle on the subject that it should be possible to find better sources than a user-submitted opinion piece on a news site. The blog seems to be referencing a Mark Fiorentino, as somebody who supports the hypothesis; if he's a notable scientist, we'd do better to just dig him out and source him directly. --McGeddon (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit) As a matter of fact a lot of the information pertaining Mr. Fiorentino and SR I found at the links at the bottom of the article. But except for (which is the whole new physics law theory), those may suffer from WP:OR according to some people. That all depends on the reliability of the PESwiki creation standards. Could you deal with this, in those cases? as an actual manuscript? a no here, would have to be a yes to opednews and/or As we always have to abide by wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See also (from WP:OR):
In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see this section of Verifiability for exceptions.
I think this paragraph, and the last sentence in particular, rules out all of the sources you have so far discussed, including the possible book manuscript (unless it gets published by a publishing house with a good reputation for publishing physics books). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit, I thought so, too. The manuscript is totally worthless as a reference. But we're not talking books, we're talking articles. nevertheless, there is a notable neutral verifiable article published on a political/life/arts/science news publishing community, a specific large managed website for opiniated articles that deserve publishing, which they may or may not do. ( so not self-published ) (let me repeat, not self published); the only notable article, published by a 3rd party, directly related to this TOE theory subject of new physics laws; the truth about free energy article. So as I said

revert with a < refimprove > tag

The "article" entitled Letters with Florentino? That is clearly unacceptable as a source. The "Truth about free energy article" is also unacceptable. Content that is likely to be WP:OR should be removed, not restored with a {{refimprove}} tag. If this hasn't appeared in the mainstream scientific media, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Period. Personally, I highly doubt that any legitimate sources are going to materialize. If you want to prove me wrong, then do so. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes .. and no, no , nooooo

Content that is likely to be WP:OR should be removed.

Are you talking about references or what now? You know this is all about 1 reference You wanna delete all the news references on wikipedia? I smell deletionism

I am sure something 'll develop. Have you ever seen the power of independent researchers coming to the same conclusion. This is all about everything

yeah I'm gonna discuss the TOE page and then , I'm going to make wild assumptions about scope of new media and information theory

oh yeah and I don't even have to cite any sources. and please note that all WP:self does not apply as it is published by a third party. Tough crunchies to you ;)

You keep recycling the same arguments and the same bogus crank sources. See our WP:OR policy, and then our WP:V policy. If you have difficulty reading or comprehending these policies, or difficulty understanding how they apply to the present case, then you are free to post a message at the WP:PUMP and ask for clarification. But the bottom line is, myself and others have cited the policies, even given you relevant direct quotes. As far as I am concerned, the issues you have raised have been more than satisfactorily addressed. Now, for Pete's sake, please Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I wanted to say this:

Yes yes .. and no, no , nooooo

Content that is likely to be WP:OR should be removed.

Are you talking about references or what now? You know this is all about 1 reference You wanna delete all the news references on wikipedia? I smell deletionism

Please keep your stick and your dead horse to yourself

If this hasn't appeared in the mainstream scientific media

See my very first challenge'Where is your source', that a news article that has been published on a political/life/arts/science news publishing community is not in the mainstream scientific media. Please source your opinions before you state them.

and please note that all WP:SPS does not apply as it is published by a third party.

also WP:or doesn't apply as this is published

From the article you so much refer to, infact the very first lines: This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

So everybody, cite a source before you say this is not mainstream! Else you might be conflicting very much with the same original speculation and ideas you are referring to, yourself. I repeat this is published. Where is your published material negating this is a mainstream source

Tough crunchies to you ;)

If no new sources will be given I will be forced to revert the article, without the <refimprove> tag. Thanks to sillyrabbit for the advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. This is published, but in a non-reliable place, as already discussed. Being published, in the context of an encyclopedia article, means more than just appearing somewhere in print, but actually being published in a place with a reputation for fact-checking within the domain to which the source is being applied. The only relevant references you seem to have given are the opednews site, which has no reputation for reliability in reporting on physics as far as I can tell (and yes, reliability should be verifiable) and the site, which is obviously self-published. Finally, I think the consensus is that new sources are clearly going to be required in order for your text to stand. Please note that WP:CONSENSUS is also a Wikipedia policy. And reverting would be a violation of that. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding to Silly rabbit's comments, some further explanations to our IP address friend, as I'm talkative these days. :-)
IP address, the source for the fact that "a political/life/arts/science news publishing community is not in the mainstream scientific media" is the fact that none of the other academic publications cite it. The mainstream scientific media is pretty much a spider's web of mutual references. Any new journal, magazine, publishing house, or even blog, can eventually enter it. The requirements, though, aren't simple: the new candidate must prove it has the same level of rigor they have, and this takes a lot of effort. Once this barrier is crossed, though, that source starts being cited by the already existing publications and is officially a member of the party. Until then, however, it isn't. See Academic journal for details.
OpedNews notability isn't the same as that of an academic journal. OpedNews is (somewhat) notable because a lot of people like it, read it, and eventually vote for it in Internet pools about "best publication on subject 'x'". Its notability is in the fact it's a little famous and, probably, a little influential among the great number of its readers. But that's it.
One interesting consequence of this is that the criteria based on which OpedNews can be considered notable is in direct contradistinction to the criteria on which most academic journals can be considered notable, so much that one fails the criteria of the other. Academic journals, specifically those most specialized, have in fact a small readership, being absolutely non-notable from the point of view of their popularity among common people. But since what matters in their case isn't the number of their readers, it's their rigor as recognized by other rigorous individuals and organizations, they are notable for the purpose of encyclopedic articles on science.
And this is where the articles you want to add fail: they might pass the "popularity" test (I don't know whether they do or not), but since they don't pass the "rigor" test, they simply don't count.
Anyone who works with science knows this pretty well. If you really don't know or understand it, I think you should think twice about editing scientific articles, as you don't have a clear understanding of the differences between science and, well, everything else really. -- alexgieg (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes alexander you are great ;) not that much sources though

I smell Ignoratio elenchi

the reason why a publishing house cannot initiate this 'plane' of thinking on a TOE theory; from the philosophy behind

The original idea for this new theory was inspired by a great deal of research having to do with the study of Albert Einstein and his quest for the Unified Field Theory. Einstein and physicists and philosophers before and after him have spent a great deal of effort trying to explain how the Universe works. Scientists have spent the last 75 years or so trying to tie together all known phenomena to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy in existence.

Since physics has made little progress in discovering the Grand Unification Theory an interesting question arises. Why have the best minds of the past and present failed to discover the truth about our Universe.

Since the time of Isaac Newton who began the era of Classical Mechanics and modern day physics we have all been trying to unlock the secrets of how the Universe works. Many of the greatest intellects of all time have attempted to find a simple explanation for material existence and the central cause of force, action at a distance. The question of why so many great minds could not solve this problem eventually led the author of the theory to come up with a reasonble explanation for our failure to solve this great mystery. It seemed reasonable to assume that perhaps something might be wrong with our approach and that possibly a mistake was made somewhere in the past. The mistake would creat a paradigm shift that would take physics in the wrong direction.

If this idea is correct the only explanation that makes sense is that somewhere along the way we began to attempt to solve an inequality. In other words we switched onto a track that was a dead end, a red herring so to speak. What if for the past hundred years or so we have been trying to prove something, that is not true. What if we have been trying to prove that a=b and in fact a<>b. If we did not know this fact we could spend centuries trying to prove an incongruity.

This was the idea that led to the development of the Theory of Super Relativity. Research was begun in an effort to find the error in the past and then correct it. After spending several years of research the error was found. The error that was discovered was subtle and it went completely undetected. The mistake occurred about a hundred years ago. It was, in my mind the most important experiment in history. The Michelson-Morley Experiment and this was the experiment that was to determine whether the aether existed or not. Neither the measurements, nor the technique were in error. That part of the experiment was executed to perfection. The experiment has been repeated many times and confirmed. I do not dispute the measurements. The error actually occurred before the experiment. A faulty assumption was made about the ether. The bad assumption was that the ether was a fluid or gas or in some way the ether could flow or move. The faulty assumption led to a design of experiment that was flawed. The experiment was designed to detect a change in the speed of light caused by light passing through an ether wind. What in fact the experiment proved was that there was no ether wind. There was no wind because it is not a gas or fluid and it did not move in any way to have a frame of reference that would be in motion. That is all that the experiment proved. Unfortunately, it was then assumed that since there was no ether wind, therefore, there was no ether. That is the mistake. The ether is a solid therefore there is no wind or resistance in any direction.

You cannot argue with reason. Please don't waste my time any more. and let the extension stay on wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You really don't understand. This isn't a matter of whether he's right, or wrong, or sideways. Particularly, I think the above text pretty intriguing, and I will read more on the subject. But it doesn't change the fact that, interesting or not, it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia that tracks what is current knowledge. This theory of him is a novelty, it's original research. So, it doesn't belong here. Once/whether/if/when it becomes something that academics and scientists are discussing daily, then it'll be "citable" in a Physics article. Until then, it isn't.
By the way: personally, I think the quest for a TOE is bogus. I don't believe in it and, worse, I don't even believe even in the existence of atoms, particles, genes, DNA, the concept of space-time etc., for I'm an instrumentalist and a phenomenologist. But you won't see me filling articles on these subjects with instrumentalist critique. Because an encyclopedia isn't the place for them. It doesn't track novel research. It tracks established conclusions, established knowledge. Period. -- alexgieg (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your eloboration. You are completely right in your definition of an encylopedia. However; the It tracks established conclusions, established knowledge refers to exactly the news article on the established and proven law of lightspeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) (mechanically established; physically proven, to be accurate) (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It does so in a novel way that goes against scientific consensus and isn't matter of current or past research among scientists that research the field. Thus, it currently is original research and doesn't fit in here. In a few years things might change. Then it'll fit. -- alexgieg (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Untrue, as the theory is developed already at this point in time. None of it is original research as it is al slated on current local and non-local work. These references exist and will probably be provided fully with the new law paper. This is however, not to the point, as the point is only a news article, about a new law; that is verifiable, as to the neutrality and rigor needed. This paper on the new law will be as a matter of fact the first (OR), and it will in fact have to pass peer-review by physicists, as this will be in the field of physics

(on references: As it is undeniable if such a theory of everything existed, that it would be true, workable and testable, and as such would actually be grounded in all the available current or past research among scientists that research the field, and as such would be very easily referenceble to greater extent;

so maybe << refimprove >> after all

SO THE PROBLEM IS THE NEWS ARTICLE IS NEWS ON 'existing OR', but is not existing OR in itself, as no research was needed to provide the news article as this was all in the PUBLIC DOMAIN

So it's actually a news article on a TOE, and as a matter a fact a metatheoretical article on physics, not a physics article, on the issue of the hypotheticality of a physics TOE itself. It defies the hypotheticality with a referrance to new laws. This is also the only text altered. As such it undercuts the 'potential status of a TOE' section with a meta-analysis in news form, and as such the news article does not need to be embedded in physics itself.

The news article has been published and peer-reviewed It's as simple as that, anything beyond that is just circular thought

Anybody seen Colbert interview Brian Green on string theory? He was practically calling him a nutjob. For good reason, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news source either.
By the way: this article is a prime target for freak theories. I suggest you walk around through its whole history and you'll find lots, and lots, and lots of new theories just like yours. Your criteria would make all of them acceptable. As this isn't acceptable, so yours also isn't. Sorry. -- alexgieg (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On your other comment, I do wonder if anything added before relied on any 'news source' so I think other additions are not the same as this one.

Journalism is indeed the only possible reason for not including the TOE news. But if 'possible status on a theory of everything' is only meant as a metaphysical section, and not a physical section, there still should be an opening for a " new laws " piece between Einstein and approximations, as this will be referencable, as this is most definetely researched before.

I will research if Einstein's letter to Felix Stein, which talked about energy and approximations, could be apllicable in itself, as it all points in the same, local realistic, direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Jaki, S.L.: "The Relevance of Physics", Chicago Press,1966
  2. ^ Feferman, S. The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, November 17, 2006